Template revised January 10, 2019.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
6f
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
December 10, 2019
DATE: November 11, 2019
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Kenneth R. Lyles, Director, Maritime Operations and Security
Mark Longridge, Capital Project Manager, Seaport Project Management
SUBJECT: Authorization for design and permitting of fender system improvements at
Terminal 91 Berths K, L & M (CIP #C801097)
Amount of this request:
$800,000
Total estimated project cost:
$6,600,000
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to complete design and permitting
of approximately 1,120 feet of replacement fender system at Terminal 91 in the amount of
$800,000 of a total preliminary estimated project cost of $6,600,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project will remove and replace the current timber fender system of berths K, L & M in the
Northwest corner of Terminal 91. Replacing the fender system with a stronger, more
environmentally friendly steel system will allow the berth to continue to service a variety of
vessel types and sizes, extending utilization of the pier for another 30 plus years and fostering
tenant retention and its related employment.
The berths at the northwest corner of Terminal 91 are used primarily for fishing vessels, but also
service research vessels, tugs and barges. The current fender system was installed over 20 years
ago and has been repaired several times since then. It is now reaching the end of its service life.
Approximately 30% of the timber piles are severely deteriorated or broken and the loading
capacity of the system is becoming significantly compromised.
JUSTIFICATION
Replacement of this essential protective system will allow continued operation of fishing vessel,
barge and other moorage activity in this berth area. The project objective is to fully replace the
deteriorating fender system at the northwest corner of Terminal 91, keeping these berths in
service and avoiding damage to the pier structure.
Throughout the last several years, the Port has been replacing aging treated timber systems at
many of our facilities as they reach the end of their life and replacing them with steel systems
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6f Page 2 of 5
Meeting Date: December 10, 2019
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
that are longer lasting, more environmentally friendly and stronger than the timber systems they
replace.
The current fender pile system at these berths consists of ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate
(ACZA) treated piles, chocks and walers in a conventional arrangement typical of timber fender
systems. While environmentally superior to traditional creosote piles used in the past, these piles
have a relatively short service life under harsh conditions. Several of the piles currently are
broken, rotted or have significant section loss around the waterline.
The designated use of these berths by industrial customers contributes to accelerated wear of
the current timber system due to chafing and abrasion of the pile faces. Providing a stronger
wear face of high density polyethylene (HDPE or similar) will also be a design priority to ensure a
long life for the new system.
All in-water work for the installation of the new piles must be completed within the permitted
fish window between August 1
st
and February 15
th
of each year, while above water work may be
completed after this time (upper bullrail work etc.). This construction window falls during some
of the busiest time for these berths, when fishing vessels are in port for refitting and
maintenance, and it is expected that operational constrains may further tighten the time the job
site is available for construction. The project team will work closely with operations staff to
minimize any impacts to both the construction and operations schedules.
Diversity in Contracting
The project team will coordinate with the Diversity in Contracting Department to determine
appropriate WMBE aspirational goals for this project.
DETAILS
Scope of Work
Overall project scope would include the replacement of approximately 1,120 linear feet of old
and deteriorated fender pile system, along with the remaining bullrail and brow at the northwest
corner of Pier 91 with a new steel fender system to facilitate vessel and barge moorage for
existing tariff and Preferential Use Agreement tenants.
Design and permitting scope under this authorization will include preparation of plans,
specifications and estimates for completing this work, and coordination of all applicable permits
required for in-water work to repair these sites.
Schedule
Permitting and operational concerns will have a significant impact on this project schedule. While
it is possible that this work might be performed under the Port’s existing programmatic permit
for maintenance and pile replacement this largely depends on the design spacing (and resultant
number) of the piles. This cannot be determined until design has begun in earnest. Also, the
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6f Page 3 of 5
Meeting Date: December 10, 2019
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
expected intermittent maintenance closures of the Hiram Chittenden locks in late 2020 is
expected to place additional demand on these berths for the upcoming season and may preclude
the closure of the berths for construction during this time.
Due to these factors for planning purposes at this stage of design the more conservative schedule
assumptions have been used, however staff will look for all opportunities to complete this work
earlier if possible.
Activity
Commission design authorization
Q4 2019
Design start
Q4 2019
Commission construction authorization
Q1 2021
Construction start
Q3 2021
In-use date
Q1 2022
Cost Breakdown
This Request
Total Project
Design & Permitting
$800,000
$850,000
Construction
$0
$5,750,000
Total
$800,000
$6,600,000
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Defer replacement of fender system and continue patching and maintaining
current timber system.
Cost Implications: Expected costs would be approximately $200-400K per year to spot replace
the currently failed piles and keep the dock in service. This would not include any potential
damage to the berth structure which would be considerably more expensive to repair.
Pros:
(1) Lower initial capital cost.
Cons:
(2) Significant risk to the structure if kept in use.
(3) Spot replacement of piles is significantly less efficient and therefore more costly per pile
than system replacement.
(4) System will continue to deteriorate, replacement piles installed under this scenario
would have an estimated life of 10-15 years.
(5) Construction costs continue to escalate so replacement would likely cost more in the
future, and still may require shutdowns of the berth in the meantime.
This is not the recommended alternative.
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6f Page 4 of 5
Meeting Date: December 10, 2019
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Alternative 2 – Full replacement of the current deteriorated system with a similar ACZA
(Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate) treated timber system similar to the current installation.
Cost Implications: $4,300,000 (initial planning level estimate)
Pros:
(1) Lower initial capital cost than a steel replacement system.
(2) Would provide better protection of the pier than the existing failing system.
Cons:
(1) ACZA piles would have an expected life of 10-15 years based on current performance
and provide a lower level of impact protection compared to a steel system.
(2) Higher costs over the life of the system and more operational disruptions due to more
frequent construction cycles.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Full replacement of the current deteriorated system with a steel system similar
to those previously installed around the Port.
Cost Implications: $6,600,000 (initial planning level estimate)
Pros:
(1) Robust, durable proven system currently in use at several sites around the Port.
(2) Longer life expectancy than other alternatives (approximately 2-3 times as durable)
(3) Superior design. Efficient welded construction with all wear surfaces protected. High
recycled content in both the steel and plastics used.
Cons:
(1) Higher initial capital cost than timber alternative
This is the recommended alternative.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Cost Estimate/Authorization Summary
Capital
Expense
Total
COST ESTIMATE
Original estimate
$6,600,000
$0
$6,600,000
AUTHORIZATION
Previous authorizations
$50,000
0
$50,000
Current request for authorization
$800,000
0
$800,000
Total authorizations, including this request
$850,000
0
$850,000
Remaining amount to be authorized
$5,750,000
$0
$5,750,000
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 6f Page 5 of 5
Meeting Date: December 10, 2019
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds
This project has been included in the 2020 Capital Plan under CIP C801097 for a total project cost
of $6,600,000.
This project will be funded by the General Fund.
Financial Analysis and Summary
Project cost for analysis
$6,600,000
Business Unit (BU)
Fishing and Commercial Maritime Operations and
Security
Effect on business performance
(NOI after depreciation)
This project will preserve existing moorage and is not
expected to generate additional revenue. Annual
depreciation expense is estimated to increase by
approximately $220,000 based on an expected useful life
of 30 years.
IRR/NPV (if relevant)
N/A
CPE Impact
N/A
Future Revenues and Expenses (Total cost of ownership)
While a treated timber system would have a lower initial capital cost, it also has a significantly
shorter service life (10-15 years, vs. 30-50 years for a steel system). Conservatively, this results in
the timber option having a significantly higher life cycle cost as it would need to be replaced twice
as often.
Similarly, the cost savings of keeping the current system operational would likely present no long-
term savings even with discounting the risk of a potential catastrophic failure; the system will still
be in need of replacement in a few years and require capital outlay at that time. Balancing the
deferral of these costs against the likely need for more costly repairs due to vessel damage is not
recommended.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST
(1) Presentation slides
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS
None
